Victim Offender Reconciliation Programs (VORPs) were developed in Canada and the USA in the 1970's as a blend of mediation and restitution concepts (Zehr & Umbreit, 1982).  Currently there are about 300 of these programs in the United States and Canada and about 700 such programs in Europe.  Using trained volunteer mediators, these programs are designed to bring victims and offenders together to discuss what happened and/or anything else that is important to them. The mediation process supports parties in working together toward their own solutions.  Some programs work only with adult offenders and others work only with juvenile offenders; some programs work with both.

Usually VORPs try to support equally the needs and perspectives of both offenders and victims. In the mediation process, it is the parties and not the mediators who hold the responsibility for the outcomes, and it is often the parties' needs for mutual discussion and understanding that determines both the process and the outcome of the mediation. This means that, while restitution is often an outcome when there is property or monetary loss, this should be the choice of the parties and not the mediators or the program.  Because VORP programs are closely tied to the criminal justice system, they can easily be subverted into offender-oriented programs.  When this is the case, VORP programs can sometimes be used to "reform", "fix" or punish offenders.  This can change the focus of mediation from one of empowerment and personalization to one of retribution or reforming and "teaching a lesson" to the offender.  Often success is measured by restitution or community service statistics or cases diverted from jail or juvenile hall.

"This retributive paradigm that undergirds criminal law often seems so natural and inevitable that it is rarely questioned.  In fact, it can be viewed as relatively recent and unique, since other models have dominated many other cultures and even most of Western history.  Other paradigms are indeed conceivable." Zehr, H., Justice Paradigm Shift? Values and Visions in the Reform Process, MEDIATION QUARTERLY, vol 12, no. 3, Spring 1995, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

The significant differences between the values of restorative justice and those of retributive justice can be seen most clearly by comparing the attitudes and priorities expressed through each paradigm:

I. Restorative Justice. The restorative paradigm emphasizes the existential reality of crime: that it violates people and their relationships and the most beneficial response should be to offer opportunities for healing and restoration.  Restoration can be facilitated by recognizing that crime violates people and relationships and by identifying the needs and obligations of the people involved.  This offers the opportunity for parties to "make things right" in accordance with those needs and obligations.  This supports the parties to engage in a dialogue and mutual agreement in which victims and offenders are given central roles.  Restorative justice can be evaluated by the extent to which responsibilities are assumed and needs of the parties are met and  healing is encouraged.

II. Retributive Justice. In the retributive paradigm, crime is usually seen as a violation of rules and relationships relative to the state, and the state and the offender are the primary parties.  This is a conflictual, adversarial model, and the actual parties, the offender and especially the victim, are normally allowed little or no voice.  In the retributive model guilt is absolute, i.e. the process establishes that the offender is guilty or not guilty, and, once established, it is indelible.  The debt is paid through punishment and the imposition of pain.  The fixing of blame through interrogation and evidence gathering is central to the process.

In honoring the values of Restorative Justice, it is important for mediators to  support all parties through the process by supporting opportunities for healing as they arise and parties are engaged on this level.  It is also very important for mediators to observe their own judgments and to put them aside.  By withholding any expectations about what parties "need" to talk about or what they "need" to be doing, mediators are able to fully support parties to talk about anything that might be important to them. It can be useful, in putting aside judgments, for each of us to remember our own life experiences to see where we may have caused harm to someone else or have been harmed ourselves, and to remember that there is validity in all thoughts and feelings.

In supporting the values of Restorative Justice, it is also important to recognize that mediators may find themselves working with one or both parties who consider that punishment is the most appropriate response to criminal offenses.  Even here it is important to put aside judgments regarding those views and, at the same time, be clear about the possibilities and opportunities that may be offered by the Restorative Justice model.  Mediators can only help parties to recognize available choices and to consider the likely consequences of those choices.

To learn more about the use of Restorative Justice in criminal justice systems, please refer to the Howard Zehr article cited above.  I find his ideas very useful and insightful. I have borrowed liberally from that article, and I have blended some of his ideas with my own.

"Much deviance is expressive, a clumsy attempt to say something.  Let the crime then become a starting point for a real dialogue, and not for an equally clumsy answer in the form of a spoonful of pain.  Social systems must be constructed so that a dialogue can take place…in ways that reduce to a minimum the perceived need for infliction of pain for the purpose of social control.  Sorrow is inevitable, but hell created by man."  Nils Cristie, Limits to Pain.  Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1981, p.11.